Leadership 101: THE FIRST TEN BOOTS

[Todd A. Slee 1,466]

22 hours ago, Cb85 said:

There is some benefit to not having centralized leadership if one group is compromised or infiltrated by the tyrants than the whole structure won't be taken out.  If it comes to armed conflict then you'll know who to trust by their reputation.

     The CIA, FBI, other esoteric federal agencies, and cops, even allied foreign intelligence agencies, often work together on any given mission, yet, just because a few informants or undercover officers are compromised, seldom reveals the entire conglomeracy of those working on it, and usually not even everyone within each individual group.

     FBI agents, for example, unless allowed to, are generally or often not allowed to discuss details of even the same case with each other, only with whoever is leading it; very strict guidelines.

     One conceptual example of how the unity-without-forsaking-individual-entity projects should be run, is illustrated by the Amish. When a house or barn needs to be built, scores of them gather, plan and do it. I've seen a complete, wood peg fastened barn built in several days. They get done, they feast, they go home. No family's or group's sovereignty is infringed, nobody loses their privacy, pride or protocol. They just git 'er dun!

     Discipline and leadership, very important, as is a type of ranking, in that, Harry is best at that, so he does that; Mary excels at those tasks, so that's what she does, etc.; this is a Native American concept of loose-knit but concise, hierarchy. Seasoned soldiers have commented on the above average [compared to military] efficiency of the Indians' ability at setting up/removing entire camps, battle technique, survival skills, and so on.

[Ovrclockd 50]

3 hours ago, Rascaldees said:

Talk is cheap as fuck. Everyone flaps their gums. What separated Washington from his peers was that he acted.

 

He didn't think that talk was cheap. That is not factually true or else he would have been the only signer and soldier in the Continental Army... also, he literally flapped his gums, not figuratively...

 

You are 3 different kinds of wrong there buddy...

[Todd A. Slee 1,466]

     You know, many times I've thought that major conflicts in the workplace ought to be settled like we did things in the army. Duke it out, boys, then it's settled, if the winner gloats, we have some martial artists who need practice.

     Best remedy I ever seen. We fought much in the army. Most ofyen, afterward, we'd sit down with our opponent afterward, drink a beer or two, and laugh while we discussed tactic improvement.

     Let the cameras roll, 'take one'!

[Todd A. Slee 1,466]

23 hours ago, Cb85 said:

Also why d you automatically assume there are 200 against you.  The purpose on the militia initially will be to hit small targets and then fade. This forces the enemy to have to spread out its forces being they never know where they might get hit. 

 

There re are room for both ideals.  But there is no Good reason to have centralized leadership in a state where under 100 militia members are active and none of them know each other well enough to know weather the other groups are trust worthy. Maybe in your state you have sufficient numbers to justify that. But not here.

     I agree. Take the example of the VC and N. Viet. Regulars. Our guys did great, but man for man, even with superior firepower, I hate to say it, but the U.S. was no match  excepting the Seals, Green Berets, Recon and Air Force Special Forces, for various reasons.

[Skillet 1,724]

6 minutes ago, Todd A. Slee said:

     I agree. Take the example of the VC and N. Viet. Regulars. Our guys did great, but man for man, even with superior firepower, I hate to say it, but the U.S. was no match  excepting the Seals, Green Berets, Recon and Air Force Special Forces, for various reasons.

 

Not entirely true. Tactically the US and ARVN forces were superior in almost every way except for their intimate knowledge of the terrain, ability to influence and blend into the local pop, and their ability to establish hasty ambushes (all good learning points).  The great majority of blunders in Vietnam were strategic and by extensions socio-political.  When Allied  fores did engage the VC and NVA they typically inflicted a much higher casualty rate. If you take a good look at Tet that pretty much wiped the VC off the board as a fighting force. And when the NVA did mass and try traditional tactics against US forces later in the war during Vietnamization they were usually wiped out.     

[Todd A. Slee 1,466]

31 minutes ago, Skillet said:

 

Not entirely true. Tactically the US and ARVN forces were superior in almost every way except for their intimate knowledge of the terrain, ability to influence and blend into the local pop, and their ability to establish hasty ambushes (all good learning points).  The great majority of blunders in Vietnam were strategic and by extensions socio-political.  When Allied  fores did engage the VC and NVA they typically inflicted a much higher casualty rate. If you take a good look at Tet that pretty much wiped the VC off the board as a fighting force. And when the NVA did mass and try traditional tactics against US forces later in the war during Vietnamization they were usually wiped out.     

     That's true, but in the earlier stages they had the advantage, due to what you said. It's like staging an attack on a trained, prepared family in their own back yard. All the more reason for us to gain the support of as much of the populace as possible.

     Man for man, we'd likely whip them in hand to hand, being bigger and stronger, plus being in a defense mode, since few were likely experts in martial arts techniques, though quite formidable opponents. But they fought guerilla style, most of ours didn't.

     That's what I'm thinking. But my point is, I believe that we can win against tyranny, when and if it comes to fighting physically, via guerilla warfare, investigative recon and extensive intelligence gathering. We still need to have a large segment of the non-combatants on the side of the Constitution, though.

[MiguelCepeda 163]

On 7/16/2020 at 5:07 PM, Rascaldees said:

My point exactly. I've been trying to unite the SC militias for a long while now. No one wants to give up power except me it seems. Granted, I had some terms to uniting with the group I joined my guys up with and we will leave if things aren't being done properly but nevertheless we made the effort. 

 

Unite your states gents. We must have fifty banners, not five hundred. 

 

Good point. There is one cure for that: find a militia that has in its BYLAWS to vote for their leadership at a prescribed period of time. Before we became a nation, that was a common method aside from purchasing a commission. 

[Todd A. Slee 1,466]

3 hours ago, MiguelCepeda said:

 

Good point. There is one cure for that: find a militia that has in its BYLAWS to vote for their leadership at a prescribed period of time. Before we became a nation, that was a common method aside from purchasing a commission. 

     There's both good and bad to that, with one fatal flaw: lack of critically thinking discernment in America, especially with the younger generations.

     Too many people vote for what goes with personal sentiments, emotional biases, personal biases, failing to see the bigger picture.

     To simplify an example or two. Politician A vows to do away with license plates, mandatorily healthy school lunches, physical exertion of any kind at work, dress codes everywhere and standards of uniformity for wages across all careers. Politician B vows to reduce plate fees, have a variety of lunches from which to choose, stretching exercises the first and last 15 minutes of work, minimum dress code standards, and enhancement/incentive programs for wages.

 

     Politician A vows for freedom for all to own any firearm they choose, including fully automatics and military weapons like grenades and mortars, legalized brothels nationwide, legalization of all recreational drugs, rights to shoot trespassers, right to not attend school, 50 paid holidays per year, 3 weeks vacation every year, no taxes, suppression of First Amendment for Christians and Constitutionalists. Politician B vows to stand against the policies of Politician A.

     Who might get elected in each case? Sounds extreme, but that sort of thing happened big time in Germany and in many countries to one extent or another. People are easily influenced by the right type of people, i.e., Barack Obama, for one, and will vote for desire, rather than what is good for them.

[MiguelCepeda 163]

Those are extreme examples that have no application in basic military leadership. The election of officers has worked in our history. It isn't terribly difficult to recognize experience and competency. There is an objective difference between a 3-year rifle company commander with two deployments under his belt, and someone that has no military experience. Conversely, the stagnation of leadership within the unorganized militia has not worked. It is unfortunate we find ourselves in a pseudo-colonial period militia construct because of the Dick Act, but here we are. Otherwise, the militia would be a state agency managing state-wide compulsory service, with top-notch officers in which to do it.

[Todd A. Slee 1,466]

That one point is what I see as a catch-22. The Constitution seems to read that civilian militias are subject to control by each respective state governor, okay in some cases or events, not so much so in others. I'm unsure as to interpretation by the powers that be.

     So on the one hand you have, to varying degrees, a militia that is virtually controlled by L.E. [that is generally who responds to disorderly events], and on the other hand a militia which is anarchial in nature, to cite the two extremes.

     Reason I say that it is not so good in some cases isn't due to probably most officers, but rather the informants at all levels. 99.9% of informants are so because they got caught committing crime, and are only interested in what benefits self.

     Further, there are distinct hierarchies within the informant networks, i.e., Bob is over ten "group leaders", each of them is over x number of informants, etc. I think it is loose knit, but a semblance of rank and file exists, so they are organized, an organization within an organization.

     Problem is, their mindset as a whole is a combination of common law only-Liberalism turning Left-Socialist-grace of Christ means anything goes. Obviously that means lack of true ethics, which is also a formula for creating an entirely different protocol for implementing rule of law.

     The informant networks largely control outcomes of L.E. and D.O.J. efforts, and it's been steadily turning blacker and uglier for at least two decades, the groundwork laid as far back as 1985, probably even earlier.

     The informant networks have turned L.E. and the D.O.J. m.o. into a system of snares, traps, manipulation, coercion and command & control. They continually commit crime while doing their duty and lie to superiors, being a very covert version of Hitler's Brown Shirts AND the ones who controlled the Brown Shirts. A movement has taken the informant networks over which is a spinoff, if not a revival, of the old SDS, which was probably linked with the 'Weather Underground'.

     Saying this, my point is, a sly influence has enveloped much of America, and a certain degree of wariness needs to be adhered to, as much of our government has transformed into a system having participants which could sell sand to an Arab.

     This is why I believe that militias should consider becoming private "security" agencies of sorts. Look at Hillsdale College. They are purely Constitutional and answer to the Constitution, not government, being totally funded by private sources, no government monies.

     As far as voting, of course it's a good idea, IF people have the right views. Seeing as how people are easily influenced by slicksters preying on sentimentalism, plays on words and emotionalism, I am all for the idea of electoral college, provided good leaders are installed.

     Our system of governance is not really flawed, but rather there are scores of ignoramuses within it who are subverting it in order to make it look bad, so that it can be discarded and replaced with one or another form of Socialism.

     Common Law only can sound neat, but would only lead to disaster. The value system, level of discernment and capacity for critical thinking of the original Colonists, as compared to many today, is like comparing apples and oranges. An extreme amount of sleight of hand is occurring.

     Bottom line, don't trust feelings and proceed with the utmost caution > Jeremiah 17:9

 

     Ref.-https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/nyregion/27informants.html

 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg36784/html/CHRG-110hhrg36784.htm

 

     Using the keywords 'corrupt police informants' will yield many results.

   

[Guest Fireeagle]

On 7/16/2020 at 5:24 PM, ROFCB Commander said:

Then the rank/structure isn't the problem, but the pigheaded jackasses are.  🙂

But yes--rank structure that simply strokes the ego misses the point entirely. Some form of command structure is needed to allow the imposition of order, particularly on the battlefield. Also, it allows for the proper flow of information and duty assignments. It doesn't have to be "rank", so to speak--in fact, I tend to lean away from rank as it's applied in the Military--but there has to be some "control" function in order for the system to maintain discipline (in terms of workflow, not "punishment") and the ability to move the unit from command to ground.

In the firefighting side, you don’t have to have a rank to be a leader.   Some of the best leaders are the experienced.